Dear Broadcasters. I wouldn't have paid for Aereo if your signals actually reached my apartment with anything resembling reliable service. Or at all. You are jerkfaces. No love, The Amazee AZ.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not well informed enough about this case to have a very reliable opinion. But as for this court, a victory for larger corporate entities is less than surprising.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I know some broadcasters from other countries have gotten around the law by instituting a timed delay of 30 seconds or so, to avoid any issues with streaming "live television."
Did this ruling address that?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
This makes me sad. I was hoping to use them in the future when I moved to a place where the apt complex didn't provide cable.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I know some broadcasters from other countries have gotten around the law by instituting a timed delay of 30 seconds or so, to avoid any issues with streaming "live television."
Did this ruling address that?
No. The ruling was very specifically targeted just at Aereo. Basically it said that if it walks like a cable company and talks like a cable company then it is a cable company and is subject to the same regulations.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the supreme court loses at being the supreme court
![[Mad]](mad.gif)